I didn't read that on the forums. I read it while looking at information in regards to enfp's. It was a long time ago and honestly I have no idea where I saw it

Originally Posted by fidelia

Wait, they say that about ENFJs too.

I'm back baby... from a week long working staycation. So I haven't caught up on this thread yet, but I'm gong to just jump in here. (Please forgive me if I'm repeating things already covered in the last 150 posts that I've missed.)

targo, as far as ENFPs needing more alone time than any other extravert? See 4th paragraph on this page ->Portrait of an ENFP

Fidelia, that's interesting that you said ENFJs are supposed to be like ENFPs in this way. I've never read that before. In fact, I've read just the opposite. Take for example, this ENFJ profile.

...too much time alone can make an ENFJ pensive, moody, self-punitive, and depressed. More than other types the ENFJ needs to move among and be engaged by people. Even a negative stroke from another person is better than being ignored.

So I'd love to know where you've read about ENFJs being more introverted than other extraverts like ENFPs. Personality profiles can be highly variable in quality. So I try to read as many profiles of a particular personality type that I can in order to make the best judgment about which pieces of which profiles are most correct. I'd love to see this one.

Being an Introverted Extravert

ENFPs. It's almost impossible for me to shut off "reading" the emotional vibe of the people around me. It's also very difficult for me to not be in a reactive posture when around other people. This means that if I don't get alone time, it'd be easy for me to lose sense of myself and my own center of gravity. Alone time allows me to center myself and analyze whether or not what I'm doing (which is dictated, in large part, by the people around me) is true to my own value system and my needs.

ENFJs. I've heard that ENFJs can be (and usually are) surrounded by people all the time, which is to be expected of any extravert. But I've also have heard that ENFJs are emotionally intimate with only a select few. One ENFJ on this forum once posted that they only let those in their inner circle see their "true selves" without the Fe facade and that these inner circle people were very few indeed. (Note no pejorative undertone to "facade" is intended. Just my Te observation about how Fe works.)

The Difference. I've concluded that the difference between ENFPs and ENFJs in regard to being alone is that ENFPs need time away from people to disengage from others and to remember who they are as individuals. (When an ENFP engages in a casual conversation with someone, they aren't afraid to bare their soul / make a connection / reveal their true selves. Voila Fi.) Whereas ENFJs with their dominant Fe don't lose their sense of self when they are engaging others. I read this as Fe allowing them to be socially aware and capable while holding others at arm's length from the ENFJ's true self. It's not that ENFJs have a problem staying in touch with their true selves. Converse to ENFPs, they have a hard time revealing their true selves to others. They, like INFJs, do this with only a select few.

So perhaps we can say that ENFPs often need time alone, and ENFJs often feel alone in a crowded room.

Of course, this is just Esoteric Wench's conjecture. Thoughts? Comments? Criticisms?

I'm back baby... from a week long working staycation. So I haven't caught up on this thread yet, but I'm gong to just jump in here. (Please forgive me if I'm repeating things already covered in the last 150 posts that I've missed.)

targo, as far as ENFPs needing more alone time than any other extravert? See 4th paragraph on this page ->Portrait of an ENFP

Fidelia, that's interesting that you said ENFJs are supposed to be like ENFPs in this way. I've never read that before. In fact, I've read just the opposite. Take for example, this ENFJ profile.

So I'd love to know where you've read about ENFJs being more introverted than other extraverts like ENFPs. Personality profiles can be highly variable in quality. So I try to read as many profiles of a particular personality type that I can in order to make the best judgment about which pieces of which profiles are most correct. I'd love to see this one.

Being an Introverted Extravert

ENFPs. It's almost impossible for me to shut off "reading" the emotional vibe of the people around me. It's also very difficult for me to not be in a reactive posture when around other people. This means that if I don't get alone time, it'd be easy for me to lose sense of myself and my own center of gravity. Alone time allows me to center myself and analyze whether or not what I'm doing (which is dictated, in large part, by the people around me) is true to my own value system and my needs.

ENFJs. I've heard that ENFJs can be (and usually are) surrounded by people all the time, which is to be expected of any extravert. But I've also have heard that ENFJs are emotionally intimate with only a select few. One ENFJ on this forum once posted that they only let those in their inner circle see their "true selves" without the Fe facade and that these inner circle people were very few indeed. (Note no pejorative undertone to "facade" is intended. Just my Te observation about how Fe works.)

The Difference. I've concluded that the difference between ENFPs and ENFJs in regard to being alone is that ENFPs need time away from people to disengage from others and to remember who they are as individuals. (When an ENFP engages in a casual conversation with someone, they aren't afraid to bare their soul / make a connection / reveal their true selves. Voila Fi.) Whereas ENFJs with their dominant Fe don't lose their sense of self when they are engaging others. I read this as Fe allowing them to be socially aware and capable while holding others at arm's length from the ENFJ's true self. It's not that ENFJs have a problem staying in touch with their true selves. Converse to ENFPs, they have a hard time revealing their true selves to others. They, like INFJs, do this with only a select few.

So perhaps we can say that ENFPs often need time alone, and ENFJs often feel alone in a crowded room.

Of course, this is just Esoteric Wench's conjecture. Thoughts? Comments? Criticisms?

I totally agree on enfp needing time alone to maintain their individuality or values. I know I do that especially when my thoughts are full with things my isfj's mom, estp's sister, and istj's aunt think I should do and be. Being alone allows me to push their opinions out of my head. I know I don't reveal my true self to people. I haven't found anyone to do that with. But I'm a pretty open person just not open about my true inner self. Funny thing is people think I'm revealing my inner self with them but I'm not.

[SIGPIC] [/SIGPIC]

Death must be so beautiful. To lie in the soft brown earth, with the grasses waving above one's head, and listen to silence. To have no yesterday, and no to-morrow. To forget time, to forgive life, to be at peace."
— Sylvia Plath (The Bell Jar)

"Remember, remember, this is now, and now, and now. Live it, feel it, cling to it. I want to become acutely aware of all I’ve taken for granted."
— Sylvia Plath

The Difference. I've concluded that the difference between ENFPs and ENFJs in regard to being alone is that ENFPs need time away from people to disengage from others and to remember who they are as individuals. (When an ENFP engages in a casual conversation with someone, they aren't afraid to bare their soul / make a connection / reveal their true selves. Voila Fi.) Whereas ENFJs with their dominant Fe don't lose their sense of self when they are engaging others. I read this as Fe allowing them to be socially aware and capable while holding others at arm's length from the ENFJ's true self. It's not that ENFJs have a problem staying in touch with their true selves. Converse to ENFPs, they have a hard time revealing their true selves to others. They, like INFJs, do this with only a select few.

So perhaps we can say that ENFPs often need time alone, and ENFJs often feel alone in a crowded room.

This is very interesting; i've never really heard the idea of an "introverted extravert" (though googling it has revealing plenty of threads on it here so i'm not sure why ).

It makes me wonder, then, how "balanced" my I and E actually can be. It's a little confusing, actually. What exactly is the difference between the two, then? Is it reasons behind the alone time? Hmmmm..

ENFPs. It's almost impossible for me to shut off "reading" the emotional vibe of the people around me. It's also very difficult for me to not be in a reactive posture when around other people. This means that if I don't get alone time, it'd be easy for me to lose sense of myself and my own center of gravity. Alone time allows me to center myself and analyze whether or not what I'm doing (which is dictated, in large part, by the people around me) is true to my own value system and my needs.

ENFJs. I've heard that ENFJs can be (and usually are) surrounded by people all the time, which is to be expected of any extravert. But I've also have heard that ENFJs are emotionally intimate with only a select few. One ENFJ on this forum once posted that they only let those in their inner circle see their "true selves" without the Fe facade and that these inner circle people were very few indeed. (Note no pejorative undertone to "facade" is intended. Just my Te observation about how Fe works.)

The Difference. I've concluded that the difference between ENFPs and ENFJs in regard to being alone is that ENFPs need time away from people to disengage from others and to remember who they are as individuals. (When an ENFP engages in a casual conversation with someone, they aren't afraid to bare their soul / make a connection / reveal their true selves. Voila Fi.) Whereas ENFJs with their dominant Fe don't lose their sense of self when they are engaging others. I read this as Fe allowing them to be socially aware and capable while holding others at arm's length from the ENFJ's true self. It's not that ENFJs have a problem staying in touch with their true selves. Converse to ENFPs, they have a hard time revealing their true selves to others. They, like INFJs, do this with only a select few.

So perhaps we can say that ENFPs often need time alone, and ENFJs often feel alone in a crowded room.

Of course, this is just Esoteric Wench's conjecture. Thoughts? Comments? Criticisms?

i think this is sounding excellent. comparing an ENFJ i know very well and myself, i think it seems very accurate - though of course i can't totally confirm the ENFJ part. i would think of this ENFJ as more "popular" than i am, and better with people in general, but oddly i feel like i'm closer to more people than she is. the identity thing also is very true. Ne > Fi means much more "swaying in the breeze" than Fe > Ni. i need alone time to internalize and recenter, whereas my ENFJ friend seems to want it because she doesn't really feel like interacting with certain people anymore.

Originally Posted by angell_m

INFP = Serene external
ENFP = Dynamic external

INFP = Reserved external
ENFP = Present external

Ps. Take what I said with a pinch of salt. I bumped into MBTi about a month ago.

this is interesting. though i'm generally a bit reserved in large social situations, actually. a bit nervous, even. i totally agree with the more serene/present though. it's very hard for me to be around people and not be present - i really can't block them out at all. this is why i think disney's belle is an INFP, actually. she masterfully tunes everyone out as she goes about things - she still is curious about the outside world and everything like all strong Ne, but she has that more serene exterior. i think mature ENFPs can pull off something like serene too, but it ends up more like "sophisticated" or something -- detachment is just never going to be our forte.

Originally Posted by Wonkavision

Well, it may sound too obvious, but it seems that ENFPs generally have a more energetic, forward, assertive, and/or outgoing vibe than INFPs.

You can just "feel" it.

Also, I think ENFPs will tend to have a more earthy, worldly, and/or sensual vibe than INFPs.

INFPs, by comparison, will seem more ethereal, otherworldly, and/or innocent.

agree -- maybe it's just because we're Fi dom/aux, but the easiest way to tell a person is ENFP/INFP is just to "feel" them. ENFP feels more in the present moment, which makes sense given that Ne is scanning present external information more than Fi is monitoring itself - even if it takes it and jumps with it all over the place. INFP can also feel more "stable" to me than ENFP, which again i assume is related to more intricately-developed Fi values. INFPs are also generally better at ignoring all the crap going on around them. ENFP not so much - so both are quite distractable, but generally ENFP is more distracted by outside things while generally INFP is more distracted by their own thoughts.

i'm starting to see the difference between extravert and introvert more and more as simply "more attuned to outside" and "more attuned to inside". thus the whole "energy" thing: it takes more energy for me to consistently focus on myself than it does to focus on the outside world. it takes introverts more energy to consistently focus on the outside world than it does to focus on themselves. yes/no?

I'm back baby... from a week long working staycation. So I haven't caught up on this thread yet, but I'm gong to just jump in here. (Please forgive me if I'm repeating things already covered in the last 150 posts that I've missed.)

targo, as far as ENFPs needing more alone time than any other extravert? See 4th paragraph on this page ->Portrait of an ENFP

Fidelia, that's interesting that you said ENFJs are supposed to be like ENFPs in this way. I've never read that before. In fact, I've read just the opposite. Take for example, this ENFJ profile.

So I'd love to know where you've read about ENFJs being more introverted than other extraverts like ENFPs. Personality profiles can be highly variable in quality. So I try to read as many profiles of a particular personality type that I can in order to make the best judgment about which pieces of which profiles are most correct. I'd love to see this one.

Being an Introverted Extravert

ENFPs. It's almost impossible for me to shut off "reading" the emotional vibe of the people around me. It's also very difficult for me to not be in a reactive posture when around other people. This means that if I don't get alone time, it'd be easy for me to lose sense of myself and my own center of gravity. Alone time allows me to center myself and analyze whether or not what I'm doing (which is dictated, in large part, by the people around me) is true to my own value system and my needs.

ENFJs. I've heard that ENFJs can be (and usually are) surrounded by people all the time, which is to be expected of any extravert. But I've also have heard that ENFJs are emotionally intimate with only a select few. One ENFJ on this forum once posted that they only let those in their inner circle see their "true selves" without the Fe facade and that these inner circle people were very few indeed. (Note no pejorative undertone to "facade" is intended. Just my Te observation about how Fe works.)

The Difference. I've concluded that the difference between ENFPs and ENFJs in regard to being alone is that ENFPs need time away from people to disengage from others and to remember who they are as individuals. (When an ENFP engages in a casual conversation with someone, they aren't afraid to bare their soul / make a connection / reveal their true selves. Voila Fi.) Whereas ENFJs with their dominant Fe don't lose their sense of self when they are engaging others. I read this as Fe allowing them to be socially aware and capable while holding others at arm's length from the ENFJ's true self. It's not that ENFJs have a problem staying in touch with their true selves. Converse to ENFPs, they have a hard time revealing their true selves to others. They, like INFJs, do this with only a select few.

So perhaps we can say that ENFPs often need time alone, and ENFJs often feel alone in a crowded room.

Of course, this is just Esoteric Wench's conjecture. Thoughts? Comments? Criticisms?

Interesting, this could be true but to me if I compare myself to most ENFPs I know and from what a few have told me, they used to need people around them all the time but as they got older, they became much more introverted. Maybe it is the balance of the extroverted and introverted functions? I use my Ni and Fe a lot and around the same balance. The converse for the ENFP could be true. If they use Ne and Fi in close to equal amounts, they may need a lot of alone time to process things. Also, in the same ENFJ profile, it says ENFJs are one of the more reserved extroverts. For me, anyways, I tend to get overstimulated with people information and need time to analyze it or I get really crabby (this might not have anything to do with being an ENFJ though). Overall, your assessment sounds pretty good.

Moved from the INFJ common issues thread as I think they may be tired of hearing us talk about ourselves there

Originally Posted by uumlau

In the ENFP case

Ne "experiences" one or more abstract connections based on any of a number of real sensory inputs. This is done without thought.

Fi is the preference to gravitate towards experiences that generate internal feelings. Logical self-consistency isn't required: each experience is its own thing valid in it's own way. Rather, the Ne experiences become the bases for self-understanding (Fi), as opposed to the INFJ pattern of Ni experiences becoming the basis for understanding of others (Fe).

Te is the desire to make some sort of "sense" out of the very real chaos generated by Ne/Fi. It doesn't require self-consistency, but it does require that any sort of idea or process "works." It colors the Ne/Fi understandings in such a way as to be very "blunt" or "harsh".

So recognize that the "internal feeling" can be totally distinct from an interpersonal interaction. Our Fi is built to mirror very complex external stimuli internally...Likely evolved to mirror people, but we can Fi mirror all types of others stuff-like quantum mechanics, ocean waves, shipping logistics or organization dynamics equally well.

In scenarios like this the Fi "self understanding" is really only a stopping point in subsequent Te suggestion of a resolution. So may seem to endlessly navel gaze, but with the objective of providing an external solution.

Originally Posted by uumlau

Ne vs Ni is just a matter of focus. Both are attitudes that believe there is always "something more" than what is immediately observed.

Ni focuses on the internal workings of that which is observed, and becomes very knowledgeable of its processes, of how it works. When a similar thing is encountered (e.g., another human being), that knowledge is applied to be able to make predictions, to "magically know things."

Ne doesn't delve deeper within the object itself, but rather sees patterns repeated through many different things in the world. For instance, an Ne insight would be that if one is observing X here, there are all these other things that are "kind of like X" and thus this one observation here implies truths about all those other things to which X is abstractly connected. In the case of Ne with Ti, this would be the (quite true) observation that waves in water are like waves in light are like waves in springs are like waves in sound. We can use water wave behavior to understand light wave behavior, and so on. (There are nitpicky differences of course, but this is the Ne starting point.) NeFi does the same thing with feelings, people and other typically Fi concerns. In both the Ti and Fi cases, the Ne connections are applied to enhance personal understanding, not to "know" or "predict" as in the Ni case.

I would suggest-as I did above for FiTe, that in the ENTP case, eventually that internal Ti "self understanding" begins to to be pushed very very hard to become an Fe solution to a social problem. It isnt enough for an ENTP to have a good idea-the idea has to be shared with others...But I'd have to let the ENTPs speak for what this feels like internally....

In both cases Ne doms, take in information, form new connections, modify our internal understanding, then offer external solutions to problems present in a group. outside-inside-outside....

I object (hehehehehe..) to the term "predict". Ne always, always works hand in hand with Si. Ne is the future and Si is the past. Thus to judge the validity of an Ne prediction in the future I refer back to my Si past.

The predictions are not spontaneous arisings of new ideas like Ni...but instead brainstorming a series of new Ne potential paths.....then by looking back at Si...predicting which will be the best path forward. (Odd...Si gives the predictive power....damn....) It isnt simply a typical ability of humans to do this, as most humans cannot make the Ne connections in the first place, thus cannot see all the potential paths forward that we can.

Originally Posted by skylights

wow, uumlau, i was just reading this again, and i have to say thank you so much for this explanation. i have a pretty good sense of what Ne feels like, but it's extremely pleasing (and helpful) to have it expressed so well in concrete terms. on the other hand, i have very limited sense of Ni, and this helps me to understand it a lot better.

i get the whole Ne understanding vs. Ni prediction thing now. because Ne is directed into an introverted process, while Ni is directed into an extraverted process. Ni delves in and follows the pattern out, while Ne senses the pattern from without and delves with it within.

and your example resonates well, it seems to me that theoretical physics is very much an NeFi concern too... you know, everything being connected, ultimate meaning, and all that

If these have been covered, please disregard but just wanted to summarize/say:

1) I like Fe and I don't think Fi and Fe necessarily have clashes. I think the when there is friction it's when an Fi thinks the Fe user is "lecturing to make me feel bad" or "butting in when not necessary" and basically taking control of a situation or citing something an Fi has done (or not) as rude or thoughtless. The Fi gets hurt, offended, angry because there was no *negative motive* or intent and doesn't understand why the Fe is maligning their character.

The act probably can be construed as rude or thoughtless from an objective observer viewpoint but the clash comes really only when the Fi user cannot and refuses to acknowledge there is any merit in the Fe accusation/interpretation of events. The Fi response is "I did not MEAN to do it, therefore you are WRONG and you have no right to tell me that was wrong". Then the Fi irritation/hurt overrides objective analysis of the situation and it just becomes cats and dogs. If the ENFP does budge a little, they will have justification why, in spite of the act potentially being rude/wrong/uncalled for, that they were "allowed" to do so for some extenuating circumstance or other x/y/z reason.

^^I've totally seen this in some ENFPs and INFPs IRL. It seems like a common reaction to criticism, honestly.

2) Some ENFPs I have noticed IRL can be selfish/self-absorbed in a particular way. Otherwise, they are lovely, popular, well-liked people. I think they are so well liked that nobody has really called them out about their selfishness, or those selfish episodes are so infrequent or so relatively minor in the scheme of things that everyone else overlooks it. Or they develop relationships with 1 or 2 special/close friends who call them out and advise them but otherwise nobody else will actually say the word 'selfish', etc.

That's really the way the world works I think. Generally if you are not someone's cup of tea, they simply ignore and avoid you, or at worst snub you. So the people around you are mostly people who are similar to you or who can appreciate your vibe (or at least put up with you).

Also, even with people who like you, your friends, etc - they know your weak points they just do not necessarily speak them out loud or talk to you about them constantly. You become friends with people because you decide that in their overall package, their pros outweigh their cons. It doesn't mean that you don't have any flaws, but rather that your friends/SOs value and love you in spite of them.

I just thought of these things this weekend after speaking to/about and thinking about 3 of my ENFP friends (yes...I think I have at least that many - isn't that CRAZY??? never knew so many ENFPs were falling from trees around me).

“If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.” ― Oscar Wilde

...when an Fi thinks the Fe user is "lecturing to make me feel bad" or "butting in when not necessary" and basically taking control of a situation or citing something an Fi has done (or not) as rude or thoughtless. The Fi gets hurt, offended, angry because there was no *negative motive* or intent and doesn't understand why the Fe is maligning their character.

The act probably can be construed as rude or thoughtless from an objective observer viewpoint but the clash comes really only when the Fi user cannot and refuses to acknowledge there is any merit in the Fe accusation/interpretation of events. The Fi response is "I did not MEAN to do it, therefore you are WRONG and you have no right to tell me that was wrong". Then the Fi irritation/hurt overrides objective analysis of the situation and it just becomes cats and dogs. If the ENFP does budge a little, they will have justification why, in spite of the act potentially being rude/wrong/uncalled for, that they were "allowed" to do so for some extenuating circumstance or other x/y/z reason.

CzeCze, I think you did a great job of fleshing out an aspect of the Fe - Fi dynamic. But I was hoping you'd be able to expound upon a few other things for me... This post is also my attempt to respond (though long overdue) to Fidelia's earlier question about how Fe user's might better react once they realized they had tread upon Fi values.

So CzeCze, how would you (you're an ENFJ, right? This is my memory from reading your posts on other threads on this forum. If I'm wrong, let me apologize in advance).... How would you suggest that the Fi user respond to an Fe criticism differently from the dynamic you so aptly described above?

Why do I ask this? I ask because I don't see any other way to respond to some Fe criticisms while remaining true to my Fi values. And, I would really like to come up with another response because my default Fi response doesn't seem to get me anywhere with Fe dominant / auxiliary users (viz. INFJs and ENFJs).

I feel like I've only recently begun to get my head around Fe, so I'm still percolating on all this. But from my Fi side of the table, it seems to me that while Fi and Fe have things in common, they also seem to be (partially) irreconcilable. I don't see this a personal failing of either the Fe or Fi user. Instead, I see it as a natural outcome of two conflicting value systems.

Perhaps this analogy will better explain:

I think there is analogy with the insurmountable differences I see between Biblical literalists and secular humanists and Fe and Fi users. I live in the Southeastern United States where evangelical Christianity is alive and well. Many of these earnest and well-meaning Christians in my community feel morally compelled - nay, they feel a God-given mandate - to proselytize. In other words, they do this with the best of intentions. From their perspective, anyone who doesn't believe as they do will burn in Hell for eternity. Thus, when they point out to the non-believer the errors in their understanding, they are helping others. Furthermore, the truth of their position seems self-evident. Anyone who hands you a tract on the street is likely to believe that if only the tract recipient were to read the Bible, then he/she would automatically be swayed. Said in another way the truth seems self-evident... to the point that it almost seems unfathomable that anyone would read the same Biblical text and come to a different conclusion.

Back to the analogy with Fi/Fe users. The problem is that I don't read, nor do I interpret, the Bible in the same way these earnest and well-meaning proselytizers do. So in my mind they have no authority to argue their position.

God knows I sometimes deserve a profound and severe rebuke. But when an Fe user reproaches me (justified or not), they do so based on an authority I do not recognize. Let me give you this concrete example:

A couple of weeks of go, I made a post in the INFJ Common Issues forum (click here to see this post) which raised quite the sh*tstorm. In particular, Fidelia responded as follows:

Originally Posted by fidelia

...that first section of your post is likely to get most INFJ's hackles up... I don't like to be short with people or disrespectful to them. You should know though that your approach was disrespectful and rude and it won't win INFJs over to your way of doing things, even if that's how you really, really feel is the best way to fly... You cannot glibly tell someone that their basic nature (along with values that are very important to them) are flawed and they need to completely change and adopt your way of doing things and expect they will happily accept your verdict. You obviously have not taken time to understand why some of those things are a Big Deal.

Well, it's hard to summarize in one paragraph the 100-150 posts that ensued after our clash. (BTW, Fidelia and I eventually found a common ground.) But one of my most profound takeaways from this incident is that if an Fi user doesn't recognize an Fe user's moral authority, then there is little/nothing the Fe user can do to get the Fi user to change their ways.

So aren't such clashes between Fe and Fi users almost preordained because Fe and Fi users do not recognize each others' moral authority? I think of one of my favorite scenes from TNT's The Closer (which is one of my favorite TV shows):

Will Pope: What do I have to do to make you agree with me?Brenda Leigh Johnson: Stop being wrong.

For me, Fi is about what is Right (with a capital R). It transcends social norms. Let me repeat this because this is the heart of the matter. Fi for me is about finding the essence of Rightness. This is the primordial Right that social norms grew out of, but they are only a reflection of the principles that I seek to guide my behavior. I try to make the most moral choices possible. And I guess I feel that social norms are rather limiting when compared with the bigger principles at stake.

About 10 days ago (and a full week after our clash on the INFJ Common Issues forum) Fidelia earnestly and graciously asked me what she could do when she tread upon Fi values. I've been percolating on this answer for 10 days... and I still don't have a good response for Fidelia... which has been driving me crazy, because my Fi was so impressed that she would ask such a question about how to better communicate with Fi users.... But I'm completely at a loss about how answer her.

I would love it, CzeCze, Fidelia, or other forum members, to propose some alternatives to the befuddled Fi user. I humbly admit that I haven't been able to come up with an alternative myself.

You can remain completely true to your values. It's the approach that you use in approaching a situation that is the issue for a Fe user, not what it is that you are trying to convey. The issue isn't social niceties, as I don't like those that much either. The important thing for Fe users is seeing that when you try to enact change you take into account your surroundings first.

It seems unnecessary, foolhardy and uneducated to sacrifice yourself to the bears when you go camping, by leaving out tasty food and playing with the Mama bear's cubs when you could still go about your business but take a few precautions first, leaving both you and the bears happy. We have a hard time feeling sympathy for your position when there are clearly posted signs that there are the social equivalents of bears around. When you get hurt, it's hard not to feel like, "What were you thinking?" The Fe users trying to tell you what to do is seen by themselves as letting you know that if you go any further, you are likely to be mauled. You see it as them trying to ruin a nice weekend of camping where you only wanted to live in nature and do a little bit of fishing. You don't feel like they have the authority to tell you what's safe and what isn't. Even now, I'm not sure how to have better communicated in that thread that you were treading on thin ice without making you feel like people were criticizing you personally. I understand that it's an approach that doesn't work for Fe users, but I'm not sure what alternative approach is better.

At least with Fe though, if you want to know, they are happy to tell you where you went wrong or how to prevent further upset. With Fi, I sometimes feel like they are saying, "You have gone way down the wrong path but I'm not going to tell you where because you have to find the way for yourself." That feels like I'm being left to wander alone in the dark in bear infested territory while you withhold the knowledge of how to get out of there or make amends.

I realize that the problem for Fi users is somewhat that they feel that no one has the one Right way to do things and that it is presumptuous for someone to believe they do. In Fe users eyes, they are trying to prevent trouble for you that seems needless and at cross purposes to your ultimate goal.

About 10 days ago (and a full week after our clash on the INFJ Common Issues forum) Fidelia earnestly and graciously asked me what she could do when she tread upon Fi values. I've been percolating on this answer for 10 days... and I still don't have a good response for Fidelia... which has been driving me crazy, because my Fi was so impressed that she would ask such a question about how to better communicate with Fi users.... But I'm completely at a loss about how answer her.

My INTJ have talked about this-recognizing that you have just hit an Fi value...The INTJ make take an utterly insane, illogical stance in a simple issue...I initially want to protest feeling as though i am being controlled, then something "clicks".

I STFU and drop the issue and walk away-just like when an ENTP gets neurotic about something. I dont know why or what provoked the slight emo edge on the convo, but I recognize by the slight increase in emotive stress level, that it is something Fi bound. During that moment of stress is NOT the time to discuss the issue. Later in a calm, more neutral place, it can be discussed and debated regarding whose Fi value trumps the other Fi value or how we can navigate the two Fi value sets-but not in the moment.

Often enfps will ask for time to process aka "let's talk about it later" or "everything is fine" even if they are pissy...as we know it is Fi getting all pissed about something, but recognize we will get angry if question and respond badly.

My Fi is so flexible that I will redefine it, as my ultimate goal is love for the other, so if it is something silly, I will often pull an ENFP chameleon and adapt to their needs-but I dont think most enfps are quite like that.